Interesting, but I'm not sure I get it. Or something. I mean, the point is a lack of signifiers won't preclude humanity or otherwise in the viewer's mind, but I was sort of expecting that they would be common things one might see at random. So I guess the point is to train up mindless killers or something, using Signifier Beta? Interesting how the subjects generalize humanity or lack thereof, at least.

This was a treat to read. The concept is delightfully creepy, in that it highlights one of the Foundation's more prominent aspects - their (arguably necessary) callous understanding of human life and its expenditure. Providing them with the power to define on a dime what qualifies as human and what deserves to die is pretty horrifying, and the depth you go to exploring this exploits the idea well. As for the technical stuff - there's little to say. Tone was spot on, which I think was really necessary in this case, considering the article's content. Spag errors were absent, the piece was tight, and as far as reconciling IC parascience with OOC social mechanics - I think it's literate? In any case, I bought the interactions, and in the end I guess that's what's important.

That last bit really nailed this for me. Yes, the Foundation has memetics that can invasively redefine how you view humanity. Yes, they COULD use these memetics to brainwash personnel into seeing D-Class and humanoid skips as nonhuman. But they don't, because they don't even need to. That's both horrifying and disturbingly reassuring.

And after reading 2122, is this skip supposed to be 2122-2…? I noticed 2122-2 was only mentioned in the 2122 article a single time, as something with potential "applications", so I'm wondering if 3021 is a more fleshed out version of it. It would certainly fit with the Foundation's indoctrination goals, at least.

I think "leaves me wanting more" is about what I was aiming for with those — I could go into the nitty-gritty about how it functions under different circumstances, and those tests could theoretically all be worth reading in a vacuum, but adding too much more would detract from the article as a whole. So basically, your assessment is right.

2122 isn't explicitly connected to 3021, nor vice versa. They just deal with similar themes, use similar literary gimmicks, and are structured similarly — to the point where I consider them companion pieces. Is it possible that 3021 is derived in some respect from 2122, or vice versa? Yes, absolutely, and that's a cool interpretation. But it's not something I'll claim as true.